Here's the article. Maybe someday I can bring myself to read it.
Here's the question I have: Does anybody ever notice that there's something funny (in both senses of the word) in the idea that appears to be universal among both the media and the Republican Brain Trust that, well, of course, Marco Rubio should be one to negotiate amnesty and a path to citizenship because, if he plays his cards right, he could someday ride these lawbreakers-turned-voters to the White House!
I'm not talking about how extremely unlikely that outcome is, I'm talking about how ethically tainted is the Brain Trust's best case scenario of
Rubio elects a new people --> The new people elects Rubio President
Or is the concept of "conflict of interest" just some old white man's quibble that we have no use for in the vibrant new United States of Diversity?
Here's the question I have: Does anybody ever notice that there's something funny (in both senses of the word) in the idea that appears to be universal among both the media and the Republican Brain Trust that, well, of course, Marco Rubio should be one to negotiate amnesty and a path to citizenship because, if he plays his cards right, he could someday ride these lawbreakers-turned-voters to the White House!
I'm not talking about how extremely unlikely that outcome is, I'm talking about how ethically tainted is the Brain Trust's best case scenario of
Rubio elects a new people --> The new people elects Rubio President
Or is the concept of "conflict of interest" just some old white man's quibble that we have no use for in the vibrant new United States of Diversity?
Posts
22 comments:
The only reason people pay attention to Marco Rubio is because he's Hispanic.
Lets take that way from him by calling him, "Mark O'Rubio"
Or is the concept of "conflict of interest" just some old white man's quibble that we have no use for in the vibrant new United States of Diversity?
Only whites believe there is such a thing as "conflict of interest"; for every other ethnic/racial group it's 'Well, duh."
In this case, however, the MSM want amnesty because they know it's the end of the Republican Party (and the historic nation they hate) so they're pushing Rubio to advance that agenda. They don't actually support his being in the White House/
Except "the new people" will never vote for Rubio. Univision hates him with a passion. Hispanic Democrats are laughing at him, noting properly that they're more interested in welfare and big government. If an amnesty Rubio wants happens and the 2016 Presidential race is between Rubio (R) and pasty white person (D), the pasty white will get 80% of the Hispanic vote.
No one except some Republican strategists believes that amnesty would help Rubio (or any Republican) get closer to the White House. So naturally their opponents want to see it enacted. If a Republican takes the lead on pushing the legislation that destroys his own party, that'll just make the victory dance on the GOP's grave that much sweeter.
The GOP is worthless. They are going to cave on amnesty and their featuring of Rubio is evidence of this. They want us to think that they don't control the agenda because we idiots of the hoi polloi stayed home and Obama and the democrats won big in November. As if it is our fault that the Left is now poised to steamroll over us.
But they still have control of the House and they have enough Senators to mount a filibuster. Have they used this to their advantage? No, they caved on the debt, and they will cave on amnesty.
But heh, they do have our back. They are going to mount a filibuster on Chuck Hagel as Defense Secretary.
Falling one vote shy of the 60 needed to move forward on the nomination, the Hagel filibuster brought stark condemnations from President Obama and Senate Democrats for its precedent-setting nature -- the first time a defense secretary nominee had been filibustered
Why can't they do this on amnesty? Why couldn't they do this on Kagan, Sotomayor and Obamacare?
What worthless pricks. They are going to filibuster a guy for Secretary of Defense because he is not loyal to a foreign nation. But they are not going to filibuster actual legislation that seeks to irrevocably change the Unites States for the worse.
"Lets take that way from him by calling him, 'Mark O'Rubio'"
Better: Mark Rube, because only a rube would believe this would work:
Rubio elects a new people --> The new people elects Rubio President
i'd legalize deserving aliens in exchange for overturning plyler v. doe and adopting jus sanguinis. they need to give something up, and those are the 2 demands.
Truly, the Republican Brains Trust (RBT) has a dizzying intellect.
Rubio elects a new people--> The new people elects Rubio President
Why Mr. Sailer, you have just described the whole political strategy of the Canadian Federal Liberal party since 1967.
Well this is actually good, that "they" are pushing Rubio forward this early. People will be burned out on him by 2016 if not earlier.
I waited until I figured Obama finished delivering his SOTU and turned on the tv in time to see a sweaty, nervous Rubio delivering his response with his trademark schoolboy earnestness. After a minute or so he leaned almost out of frame while maintaining eye contact with the camera and returned with a tiny bottle of water, which he sucked on.
"Whoa," I thought, "this guy is the Republican's Great Tan Hope?"
The next day everyone on Fox was complaining about how the liberals were focusing on Rubio's desperate grab for the water and ignoring his scintillating message. Sorry, but these folks have to realize that these are the moments that sink a candidate. It doesn't matter what a politician says anymore, it's the overall impression he makes that counts. Obama proved that.
I've said it before and I'll say it again.
Time for the GOP to go the way of the Whigs.
"The only reason people pay attention to Marco Rubio is because he's Hispanic."
That's not the reason he won the senate seat in Florida. He, like Obama, is a good speaker. At least, he's the kind of speaker Americans like, I should say.
He's better than Obama, actually. Obama is a stiff compared to Rubio.
"He, like Obama, is a good speaker. At least, he's the kind of speaker Americans like, I should say.
He's better than Obama, actually. Obama is a stiff compared to Rubio."
Obama is cooler though. And I don't just mean that in the over-hyped sense: he is literally better at keeping his cool and looking unflappable. Compare his reaction to Lehman's implosion with McCain's in '08, for example. Obama wouldn't get dry mouth and have to lunge for a bottle of water like Rubio did in his SOTU response.
The GOP is worthless. They are going to cave on amnesty and their featuring of Rubio is evidence of this...
Hispanics, err ... make that Latinos, are natural conservatives!!! They're hard working, entrepreneurial and socially conservative!!! We just have to re-brand the party and figure out a way to appeal to them ... as well as to African Americans, women, young people, Asians and Gays.
Obviously, a twofer of backing amnesty and gay marriage should do the trick!!!
But they still have control of the House and they have enough Senators to mount a filibuster. Have they used this to their advantage? No, they caved on the debt, and they will cave on amnesty.
Why can't they do this on amnesty? Why couldn't they do this on Kagan, Sotomayor and Obamacare?
What worthless pricks. They are going to filibuster a guy for Secretary of Defense because he is not loyal to a foreign nation. But they are not going to filibuster actual legislation that seeks to irrevocably change the Unites States for the worse.
But heh, they do have our back. They are going to mount a filibuster on Chuck Hagel as Defense Secretary...
Chuck Hagel is a virulent, noxious anti-Semite who dredged up one of the most ossified and noxious, yet persistent, anti-Semitic blood libels from history - the old dual loyalty cannard. If that's not obvious to you, then you must be a virulent, noxious anti-Semite too.
"Time for the GOP to go the way of the Whigs. "
And who's going to stop the democrats once the republicans are destroyed? The shrinking Tea Party? armed redneck militias?
For all ye of little faith, I for one, happen to believe that it's a great time to be a conservative.
Not only is Chuck Hagel a dead man walking, but with a Jeb Bush/Marco Rubio ticket in 2016, the GOP will be ideally situated to reap the benefits of the upcoming amnesty legislation and its subsequent reshaping of the electoral map (i.e., the coming deluge of hard working, entrepreneurial, naturally conservative Latino voters).
Both Jeb and young Mr. Rubio speak fluent Spanish!
Let's see how the Dem's Hillary/Rahm ticket handles it when they find themselves having to deal with a diverse and dually bilingual GOP ticket!!! I'll bet they wet their pants (and pantsuits). When Jeb and Rubio are prattling along in fluent Catalonian, the only thing the Dems will be able to sputter out will be "¡ay carumba!"
Now all we have to do is:
1.) Make sure that we flood the zone with waves of naturally conservative Latinos from south of the border (just so long as they're not those awful Cubans who are always trying to come ashore in Florida with their rickety makeshift rafts)
2.) Rehab the Bush family name
3.) Get Rubio a new hairline so that he can ditch the dorky looking comb-over
Yep, fear not my fellow conservatives, for the future is bright.
Now if you'll excuse me, I have to attend to my better half, as she and I have returned from a long evening of imbibing martinis and mimosas at an exclusive Valentine's Day cocktail party in Georgetown.
I promised her that when we got home, I'd allow her to dust off her strap-on and hit me with a quick round of anal-ramming (the things you do for love!).
Whoops! It appears as though I've committed two most uncharacteristic typos.
I intended to write "Dems'" and "Catalan", rather than "Dem's" and "Catalonian."
How embarrassing! One could be forgiven for questioning whether I actually learned anything during my stays at Lawrenceville and Yale.
To be sure, my typos can be attributed to a case of fat fingers, courtesy of the massive amounts of KY Jelly that I had on my fingers when I was attempting to hammer out the offending comment on my iphone (if I've learned anything since getting married, it's to never let your better half give you a strap-on induced rectal pounding without first administering plenty of lube!).
Worse yet, it appears as though I may have inadvertently smeared lube on the 50th anniversary paperback edition of God and Man at Yale which resides in the front pocket of my jacket and accompanies me everywhere I go!
Here's to hoping that Rich Lowery, Jonah Goldberg and Megan McArdle (much less, Andrew Sullivan) never catch word of this!
And who's going to stop the democrats once the republicans are destroyed?...armed redneck militias?
The Republicans have spent the last three decades not "stopping" anything. It's not enough just to cut taxes. George Bush cut taxes, then expanded Medicare, invaded Central Asia, and ordered the free credit to flow. Those costs were presented for payment, as they must. When a movement in the person of Ron Paul and his white, male and young volunteers emerged and actually threatened to starve the beast, they were drummed out of the party. They will not be back.
Like the Soviet Union, this juggernaut will just have to run its course. And yes, it will probably (though not necessarily) end with militias.
"john marzan said...
""Time for the GOP to go the way of the Whigs.""
And who's going to stop the democrats once the republicans are destroyed?"
No one is going to stop the democrats UNTIL the Republicans are destroyed.
The death of the GOP is a necessary but not sufficient condition to making any progress on stopping the war against whites. It is perhaps the number one obstacle we face. With the GOP as dead as the Whigs or the Libertarians organizing a new party might, just might be possible. But I wouldn't count on it.
john marzan:
The powerful Republicans and Democrats are on the same page on amnesty, just as they are on endless wars, domestic spying, impunity for the powerful, the war on drugs, and affirmative action. It's like asking "if not for the Democrats, who's going to push back on the Republicans' desire for unlimited executive power?" Nobody, but then, the Democrats aren't pushing back on that either. They support all that stuff, even when they occasionally find it convenient to say otherwise in campaign speeches.
When the folks at the top agree on some policy, it almost doesn't matter what the rest of us think. (Which party should you have voted for to break up the too-big-to-fail banks? Or to shut down the post-9/11 massive domestic spying being done? Or to stop sending a few billion dollars to Israel every year for no discernable purpose?)
So long as we can only get choices between alternatives acceptable to the elites, we will continue having huge important issues on which we simply have no voice. Even when states pass laws to do something the elites dislike (legalize pot, hassle illegal immigrants, end affirmative action), it turns out that the constitution forbids it.
Post a Comment